CARLO RANARA, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ORO UNION CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY AND/OR JIMMY TING CHANG, GENERAL MANAGER/OWNER.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 100969
- Promulgated: 1992-08-14
- Ponente: Cruz, J.
Doctrine
Procedural lapses such as omitting a motion for reconsideration may be forgiven in cases involving workers' rights to allow resolution on the merits in the interest of substantial justice.
Documentary evidence need not be produced in original if no party challenges their genuineness or due execution; secondary evidence may suffice.
Even ordinary, nonunionized workers enjoy the protection and benevolence of the law against arbitrary dismissal.
Facts
Petitioner Carlos Ranara worked as a driver for Oro Union Construction Supply and was told by respondent's secretary not to return; when he did on 11 November 1989 another person was handling his vehicle and he learned he had been separated.
When Ranara asked why he was terminated, the secretary replied that the employer 'does not like your services.'
The Court sustained the Labor Arbiter's findings on the petitioner's monetary claims based on the documentary evidence submitted by the private respondents.
The Court noted it may overlook the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration in the interest of substantial justice, especially to protect worker rights.
Issues
Whether the petitioner's summary separation amounted to illegal dismissal.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to separation pay and back wages in lieu of reinstatement.
Whether the petitioner's failure to file a motion for reconsideration before coming to this Court is a fatal procedural lapse.
Whether the NLRC properly relied on documentary evidence without requiring originals when there was no challenge to their genuineness.
Ruling
The Court affirmed the NLRC's decision, finding the summary separation wrongful and reflecting the employer's arbitrary dismissal of the driver.
The Court awarded the petitioner separation pay and three years' back wages in lieu of reinstatement, modifying the NLRC decision accordingly.
The Court held that the failure to file a motion for reconsideration was not fatal and may be disregarded in the interest of substantial justice and protection of workers' rights.
The Court sustained the Labor Arbiter's monetary findings and agreed originals of documentary evidence need not be produced absent any challenge to their genuineness.
Keywords
G.R. No. 100969, illegal dismissal, reinstatement with full back wages, underpayment of wages, overtime pay, non-payment of 13th month pay, service incentive leave, separation pay, moral damages, abandonment of work, Labor Arbiter decision, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), petition for certiorari, strained relations, due execution and genuineness, Labor Code, arbitrary dismissal, damages, chang, ranara